Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

UNDERSTANDING THE ADOPTION OF BPM


GOVERNANCE IN BRAZILIAN PUBLIC SECTOR
Valena, George, Centro de Informtica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Av.
Prof. Luis Freire, Cidade Universitria, 50740540, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil,
gavs@cin.ufpe.br
Alves, Carina, Centro de Informtica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Av.
Prof. Luis Freire, Cidade Universitria, 50740540, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil,
cfa@cin.ufpe.br
Santana, Andr, Centro de Informtica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Av.
Prof. Luis Freire, Cidade Universitria, 50740540, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil,
afls2@cin.ufpe.br
Oliveira, Joyce, Centro de Informtica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Av.
Prof. Luis Freire, Cidade Universitria, 50740540, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil,
japo@cin.ufpe.br
Santos, Higor, Centro de Informtica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Av.
Prof. Luis Freire, Cidade Universitria, 50740540, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil,
hrms@cin.ufpe.br

Abstract
BPM governance is a key factor to ensure the successful deployment of BPM across an organization.
BPM governance emphasizes not only the accountability and control of BPM initiatives, but also
provides the mechanisms to ensure that BPM delivers desirable results. Despite growing research
identifying the importance of BPM governance, there has been limited number of empirical studies
investigating this issue. In this paper, we adopt existing BPM governance elements presented in the
literature to investigate how these elements are embraced by public organizations. We conducted case
studies with four public organizations in Brazil. All organizations are involved in BPM initiatives with
varying levels of maturity. The results suggest that strong sponsorship, suitable BPM training and
availability of internal staff with BPM expertise are key success factors for these initiatives. To
provide a richer understanding on the factors that affect the performance of BPM initiatives, we
conducted a system dynamic analysis of how barriers and facilitators interact with each other and
create patterns of dysfunctional systemic behaviors, which may slowdown the success of the BPM
initiative. The generated system archetypes can enhance the understanding of current situation and
direct future actions.
Keywords: Business Process Management, BPM Governance, Public Sector, Case Study.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

1 Introduction
Business Process Management (BPM) discipline has received significant attention in the last decade.
The introduction of BPM philosophy in organizational environment promotes increased agility,
efficiency and innovation in operation (Korhonen, 2007; Becker et al., 2012). It promises to define
high-performing processes that demonstrate strategic strengths, such as the ability to better respond to
rapid changes and the possibility to standardize operational best practices across the organization
(Recker et al., 2011). These benefits are obtained via the execution of BPM lifecycle, which
encompasses the phases of process identification, modeling, automation and continuous improvement
(Khan, 2004). To have a truly successful adoption of BPM, organizations must execute a systematic
planning that includes the definition of specific roles and responsibilities, the description of policies
and methodologies, and the selection of process-oriented software tools. This definition layer of
BPM can be referred to as BPM governance. It aims at providing principles to support BPM initiatives
by addressing ownership and control of process across organizational units and bridging the gap
between business goals and BPM efforts (Bandara et al., 2007).
According to (Jeston and Nellis, 2008; Ravesteyn and Batenburg, 2010; Rosemann and van Brocke,
2010), establishing BPM governance is considered a critical success factor for BPM initiatives. The
relevance of a well-defined strategy for BPM governance is intensified in the context of public
organizations. This occurs due to specific characteristics of these institutions that hamper BPM
adoption, such as periodic change of government leaders, low flexibility and innovation, and stiffness
of a hierarchical structure that is based on a vertical approach. A limited number of studies have
empirically explored the adoption of BPM by the public sector (Santana et al., 2011; Jayaganesh and
Shanks, 2009; Gulledge and Sommer, 2002). Additionally, low attention has been paid to the usage,
evolution, implications and overall success of BPM initiatives (Becker et al., 2012).
Motivated by the previous scenario, this research investigates how BPM governance practices are
adopted by organizations from Brazilian public sector. As the broad goal of this research project, we
aim to develop a methodological guide for BPM governance within the public sector, supporting
organizations to increase transparency, efficiency, accountability and innovation of their processes. In
this paper, we report on findings from case studies carried out in four Brazilian public organizations.
Based on a set of BPM governance elements proposed in the literature, we analyze how the
organizations are conducting projects to introduce BPM in their structure and operations. Given that,
we address the following research questions in this study: (RQ1) How the BPM governance elements
are adopted by the Brazilian public organizations? (RQ2) What are the barriers and facilitators
encountered in the BPM initiatives? (RQ3) How the barriers and facilitators interact with each other?
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a brief background in BPM
Governance. Section 3 outlines the case study method and introduces the participating organizations.
Section 4 presents the results of the case studies. Section 5 discusses the findings of the case studies.
In addition, this section presents a system dynamic analysis of barriers and facilitators faced by one of
the studied organizations. This approach treats barriers and facilitators as factors that can interact with
each other and create patterns of dysfunctional systemic behaviors, which may slowdown the success
of the BPM initiative. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the main contributions of the study and provides
an outlook on future research.

2 BPM Governance
According to (Kirchmer, 2009), BPM governance is a set of guidelines and processes focused on
organizing all BPM activities and initiatives that are conducted by an organization. In a previous
research we presented a synthesis of BPM governance elements found in literature (Santana et al.,
2011). This list of elements was adopted in order to guide our current research and is described as
follows.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

Objectives intentions and goals established by the organization with respect to BPM initiatives.
Organizational structure arrangement of the institution to support BPM practices operation.
Roles and responsibilities functions and duties focused on the execution of BPM initiatives.
Activities tasks and routines associated with roles involved in BPM initiatives.
Infrastructure technical and non-technical basis required for accomplishing BPM practices,
including physical structure, software tools, staff and other resources used in BPM initiatives.
Methodological standards theoretical models, techniques, notations, reference models and
standardized descriptions of activities.
Decision-making process criteria and decision limits for prioritizing and setting goals.
Control and evaluation indicators, metrics and additional forms of monitoring BPM initiatives.
Governance is necessary for the success of business processes, contributing to business success. In
public organizations, governance is increasingly seemed as a key element to strengthen transparency,
integrity and accountability in order to reinforce public confidence in government activities.

3 Research Method
This study strives to understand how BPM governance is adopted by Brazilian public organizations.
Given the exploratory nature of the research questions, we adopted a case study method (Yin, 2008).
We used a non probabilistic and purposeful approach to select the organizations (Merrian, 2009).

3.1

Overview of Organizations

In this section, we present a description of the four participating organizations together with a brief
status of their BPM initiatives.
Organization A information technology State agency that develops information management
systems, portals and web pages meeting the interests of government institutions. Efforts to
introduce BPM started in 2008 with a new direction board, which sponsored the creation of a BPM
unit. This unit aims to improve business processes for public organizations in Pernambuco, Brazil.
Organization B State public institution responsible for resolving civil and criminal cases.
Discussions about the adoption of BPM began in 2009 together with the exigency by the National
Justice Council to deploy the electronic workflow of judicial processes. Later, as a result from the
organizational strategic planning, training of managers on BPM and standardization of routines
were defined as additional objectives to be pursued.
Organization C responsible for auditing the accounts of the State and municipalities. The
adoption of BPM practices started in the beginning of 2012. The new management board intends to
establish a Business Process Management Office (BPMO) within its structure. Previously, process
modeling activities were conducted, but these efforts were not considered as a BPM initiative.
Organization D this organization is responsible for the public administration of Recife, capital of
Pernambuco State, with a population of 1.5 million people. The establishment of business process
modeling and improvement activities started in 2006 with the conduction of several pilot projects.
In July 2010, a formal BPM initiative was initiated.

3.2

Research steps

Initially, we performed a literature review to identify core BPM governance elements, as presented in
Section 2. These constructs were described in a glossary and acted as a group of categories to classify
empirical data obtained. This procedure followed coding guidelines proposed by (Merriam, 2009).
To collect qualitative data, we developed a semi-structured interview protocol that included
demographic questions, inquiries regarding BPM governance elements as well as inquiries about
barriers and facilitators that affect the success of BPM initiatives. The same interview protocol was
used in all interviews. Interviewees were public servants responsible for promoting and/or executing

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

BPM projects. In summary, five professionals from the four institutions were interviewed. These
professionals played one or more of the following roles: process analyst, BPM team leader, BPM
sponsor, BPM client. The interviews were registered using a digital voice recorder. Obtained data was
transcribed and extracted with Weft QDA software. Data analysis phase mapped textual excerpts from
interviews to a set of categories representing BPM governance elements.
Following the interviews, we organized two focus groups with interviewees and other representatives
of studied organizations. The first focus group aimed to validate data collected from the interviews and
exchange experience on BPM governance among the four organizations. After the focus group, we
shared a document describing the integrated results of the case studies with the organizations. A
second focus group was conducted with the purpose of the institutions presenting the evolution of their
BPM initiatives and share best practices. The dialogues of the focus groups were recorded and further
examined. Additionally, we examined the power point slides that the organizations presented during
the focus group as evidence source for our data analysis.
Finally, we performed a system dynamics analysis of facilitators and barriers that affect the success of
the BPM initiative conducted by Organization D. The selection of Organization D is due to the fact
that their BPM initiative has the highest maturity level among the studied organizations. Therefore,
their BPM initiative provides a richer set of data for investigation. This analysis was based on system
thinking theories and methods of Peter Senge and colleagues (Senge, 2006); (Senge et al., 1994).
System dynamics approach enabled us to discuss how the individual factors found in the studied
context interact with each other and establish patterns of dysfunctional systemic behaviors, which may
affect the success of BPM Initiative.

4 Findings
In this section we present the results from the case studies. We discuss how the BPM initiatives
conducted by the four organizations embrace the BPM governance elements described in Section 2.

4.1

Objectives

We observed that Organizations A and B share the goal of fostering the main BPM concepts and
practices. Organizations B and C consider the establishment of a BPMO as a key objective, since this
structure supports the conduction of BPM projects. Implementing the electronic workflow of judicial
processes is also an objective for both institutions, automating relevant workflow routines and
enabling process monitoring. This was reinforced by Organization C: The president wants to
implement electronic processes from here to 2013. Organizations C and D have the common goal of
formalizing process owner role, which is currently performed in an ad-hoc fashion. The relevance of
performance indicators is perceived by Organizations B and D, which strive to improve control by
defining process management indicators. The execution of the BPM lifecycle is also an objective
shared by all organizations. By implementing this approach, they intend to establish a continuous
improvement cycle that enables process standardization and increasing efficiency.

4.2

Organizational structure

Organizations A, B and D created an organizational structure to manage BPM projects. In


Organization A, the Business Processes Unit is responsible for supporting BPM initiatives within State
public institutions. In its turn, Organization B has two structures dedicated to internal BPM initiatives.
The Business Process Management Unit is primarily an operational division. It focuses on executing
BPM activities such as process modeling, design and automation. It also supports the selection and
deployment of BPM-oriented software tools. While the Coordination of Planning and Strategic
Management Unit is associated with the high direction. It guides the definition of the organizational
strategic planning and monitors BPM initiatives. Organization C lacks a formal structure to govern
BPM within the institution, but efforts towards the definition of a BPMO have already started.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

4.3

Roles and responsibilities

Most BPM roles identified during the interviews are informally established. The BPM sponsor role is
considered by all organizations. With respect to this role, the interviewee in Organization A stressed
that This is something we emphasize; the organizations should have a strong and active sponsor.
The process owner role was mentioned by Organizations A, B and D. According to interviewees, the
sponsor aims at supporting and promoting BPM activities within the institution. In its turn, the process
owner is responsible for a specific process and monitors its progress during execution. The role of the
process analyst was evidenced in Organizations B and C. It accounts for process modeling, design,
documentation and automation. Organizations A and B highlighted the existence of a process
coordinator, who is an IT professional providing technical support to the implementation of processoriented systems. Organizations A, B and C also describe the role of the BPM project manager, whose
function is to coordinate and report the evolution of the BPM projects. This role is responsible for the
relationship between the customer and the supplier, while providing support for projects infrastructure
problems. Additionally, some organizations assign more than one role for the same employee. In
organization C, the process owner can also accumulate the function of process analyst.

4.4

Activities

All organizations are involved with training activities. Their aim is to introduce BPM concepts by
providing public servants with lectures and workshops. In regards to BPM lifecycle, the activities of
process analysis, modeling and design are conducted by all Organizations. In particular, Organizations
A, B and D already automated some processes using BPMS (Business Process Management Suite).
The provision of an appropriate IT infrastructure (e.g. computer networks, data servers) is an activity
common to Organizations A and D. The monitoring of suppliers and external consultants and the
acquisition of process-oriented systems are duties of Organization A. Since this organization assists
public institutions in BPM initiatives, they also act as external consultants and training facilitators.

4.5

Infrastructure

Concerning the use of software tools to handle BPM activities, all organizations adopt Bizagi Modeler
during process modeling phase. To automate process models, Organizations A and D employ the
BPMS Agiles, while Organization B executes these models in a beta version of the electronic
workflow of judicial processes. Oracle BPA Suite was acquired in Organizations A and B. In the
former, this tool is employed for designing systems integration. While in Organization B, the Oracle
BPA Suite was obtained as part of a large acquisition. However, since no training courses were given
to the BPM team, the system is not currently in use. In particular, Organizations C and D reported the
use of software tools providing centralized knowledge repositories, while project management tools
were identified in Organization C. The BPM teams are quite small considering the size of the
institutions. In Organization A, a team of three people is responsible for promoting and coordinating
BPM projects. Organization B has a team with six public servants and one external consultant. In
Organization C, the BPM team has five public servants and one trainee. Finally, in Organization D,
five public servants and six external consultants are involved with the BPM initiative.

4.6

Methodological standards

Organizations A and B developed internal guides that include best practices and schemes of business
flows. The BPM methodology used by Organization D was externally defined by a consulting
company. BPM CBoK and GesPblica are the conceptual basis of the methodology defined in
Organization A. GesPblica is a Brazilian public initiative that proposes guidelines for public
management based on BPM concepts (GesPblica, 2012). BPMN is the modeling notation adopted by
all institutions. PMBoK is employed to manage BPM projects in Organizations B and C. Additional
conceptual references are adopted by Organization C, such as BSC and PDCA cycle: the flow of the

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

process modeling phase is based on the PDCA cycle. Besides the previous references, the notion of
value chain was evidenced in Organizations B and C, although not explicitly mapped.

4.7

Decision-making process

Organization A prioritizes BPM projects according the demand from external public institutions.
Organization B defined a decision-making process for process monitoring. This procedure starts by
identifying issues during process modeling, which are then prioritized. Indicators associated with these
factors are established and support the follow-up of bottlenecks during process execution. In order to
prioritize the processes that will be modeled and automated, Organization D takes into account the
level of process complexity. Processes that are easier to represent receive a higher priority. This is the
same criterion employed in Organization C, which also considers aspects such as difficulty of
automation, degree of association with the organizational value chain, relevance for citizens, and
number of process instances. In exceptional cases, Organizations C and D prioritize critical processes
independently of their complexity.

4.8

Control and evaluation

The BPM teams from all organizations have periodic internal meetings. Monthly meetings are carried
out in Organization A, although no formal control and evaluation criteria are defined. Organization B
monitors the BPM initiative via periodic meetings with top management. In order to improve process
monitoring, this institution is currently extracting indicators from databases. Additionally, it considers
measures defined by the National Justice Council to assess the evolution of the BPM initiative. Project
management practices and BSC-based indicators are used as monitoring instruments in Organization
C. Finally, Organization D has weekly meetings to control their BPM projects.

5 Discussion
In this section, we discuss how BPM governance elements are adopted by the studied organizations.
We also provide a system dynamics analysis of barriers and facilitators involved in the BPM initiative
of Organization D.

5.1

How BPM governance elements are adopted by Public Organizations

The adoption of BPM principles requires cultural changes within organizations (Puah and Tang, 2000)
and this is particularly critical in public sector environment due to its bureaucratic structure (Bigdeli et
al., 2012). Therefore, promoting BPM philosophy is considered a key goal to be achieved by the
organizations. Another goal stressed during the interviews is the creation of a BPMO, which is one of
the main characteristics of process-oriented organizations (Kohlbacher, 2009). The BPMO fosters the
implementation of major roles for BPM and supports all activities of BPM lifecycle. Studied
organizations strive to formally define this structure to support the coordination of BPM initiatives and
also face their discontinuity due to change of government leaders. Finally, most organizations aim to
define process performance indicators. These form the basis of process controlling, which promotes
the efficiency principle pursued by the public sector and is also a starting point for continuous process
improvement (Niehaves and Henser, 2011). Besides, some institutions also intend to determine
indicators for BPM initiatives, which may pave the way for effective BPM governance.
Three organizations have established a unit centered on BPM. The structures created partially
comprise the responsibilities of a proper BPMO, such as defining methodologies and standards for
BPM, and selecting software tools to support the execution of BPM lifecycle. The absence of an
appropriate structure for BPM reflects the low maturity of BPM initiatives in studied organizations.
This low maturity is also reflected on the structure of roles and responsibilities: functions identified
are not formally defined. This also results from the fact that in order to define new functions and roles

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

in the Brazilian public sector it is necessary to change legislation. Differently from traditional BPM
functions mapped during the interviews such as process sponsor, process owner and process analyst,
the role of process administrator was reported by some organizations. This role is similar to an IT
coordinator, enabling an appropriate implementation of processes and acting in conjunction with the
process owner. Finally, the process project manager was perceived as someone who drives the BPM
initiative, evaluates and reports its evolution for sponsors.
All organizations currently focus on training to increase understanding of BPM concepts. However, it
is worth noting that only the BPM teams are directly receiving BPM training. Activities related to the
execution of the BPM lifecycle were also reported by interviewees. While Organization C focuses on
process modeling phase, Organizations A, B and D also implemented their processes in workflow
systems. In particular, Organization D analyzes the results of monitoring phase to refine process
models. The software infrastructure supporting these activities is basically composed by process
modeling and automation tools. A possible explanation for the predominant adoption of Bizagi
Modeler among organizations is its free offer for download. This is relevant, since emergent BPM
initiatives in the Brazilian public sector may not have a high budget due to the uncertainty of their
results for senior government. Also, the use of knowledge repositories for BPM initiatives can be
viewed as a strategy for process reuse. This may reduce modeling efforts of process analysts, while
providing benefits such as process flexibility and variability management (Derguech and Bhiri, 2010).
The definition of methodologies to guide BPM activities was observed in all organizations. These
methodologies establish business flows, techniques and/or best practices to accomplish and
standardize BPM lifecycle execution (Aitken et al., 2010). Their usage also increases the maturity of
BPM initiatives (Bucher and Winter, 2010). For decision-making support, the most common criterion
was the complexity level of processes. This may result from the fact that easier processes are less
costly and risky to model and implement, while providing faster results. With respect to control and
evaluation of BPM efforts, most organizations conduct periodic monitoring meetings.
In addition to the governance elements presented in Section 4, we also investigated the barriers and
facilitators involved in the BPM initiatives. These aspects were individually mentioned during
interviews and lately clarified in focus groups sessions with the four institutions. The major challenge
organizations face for the evolution of their initiatives is to internally promote a process-orientation
culture. In particular, they need to increase awareness of the benefits, conceptual and technical basis of
BPM among employees. Another issue claimed by all organizations is the lack of human resources
with BPM expertise, which is a fundamental capability for organizations to succeed in BPM
(Kohlbacher, 2009). To overcome this obstacle, most of them have external consultants or trainees as
part of their BPM teams. However, this represents a potential risk, since these personnel are not
permanent. Defining a knowledge transfer strategy is therefore essential. Also in human resources
context, institutions complained about the reduced size of the BPM team and the lack of personnel
with abilities to act as process owners. Additionally, the complexity associated with the integration of
BPMS, the discontinuity of BPM initiatives due to government changes, and the BPM team also
performing software maintenance tasks were found as barriers in some organizations.
Senior management sponsorship and proper BPM training were evidenced as main facilitators for
BPM initiatives progress. While BPM sponsors act in the executive level to internally evidence the
strategic role of BPM, training programs cover an organization-wide BPM methodology and prepare
employees to use BPM technology (Scheer and Brabnder, 2010). Additional aspects cited by the
organizations are having a good technical infrastructure (e.g. software tools, supporting
communication facilities) and the positive synergy among units participating in the BPM initiatives. In
the next section we provide an in-depth analysis of barriers and facilitators faced by Organization D.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

5.2

A System Dynamics Analysis of Facilitators and Barriers in


Organization D

In order to deeply investigate the barriers and facilitators faced by participating organizations and
understand how these are related to each other, we performed a system dynamics analysis (Senge,
2006), (Senge et al, 1994). It establishes a causal relation network among factors extracted from
Organization D, which is the richest and most mature initiative among the investigated cases. This
method aims to identify potential leverage points and patterns of causal cycles that contribute to
organizations success along time. It also evidences other points that limit its success or may lead
failure. Some of these patterns are known structures called by Senge (2006) system archetypes.
We started by deeply scrutinizing the facilitators and barriers declared by Organization D. A detailed
set with 38 factors was obtained. After several meetings with participants in this institution, we
obtained a prioritized list with 15 factors. This was represented as a causal matrix, which establishes
relationships between these factors (Figure 1). Each line in the matrix represents a variable, which is
analyzed to identify if it influences other variables listed in the columns. While crossing lines with
columns, a code d or i was inserted. It indicates that the variable in the line causes the one in the
column in a directly (d) or inversely (i) proportional form. The values 3 and 1 are suggested
standard weights related to the intensity of causal relations. Cells with no code state that no relation
was remarked. Given their knowledge about the business and the BPM initiative, participants in
Organization D were responsible to indicate the relations and weights among the prioritized factors.

Figure 1.Causal Relationship Matrix.


The variables (facilitators and barriers) in the resultant matrix were reordered by values in the
correspondent columns Sum weight of causes and Sum weight of effects. Table 1 lists the variables
ordered by what can be considered as their systemic power. This is useful to identify potential
leverage factors to the performance of the BPM initiative. BPM teams can use this result to define
aspects requiring further investment and improvement. The factors labeled with (*) should be
preceded by lack of, as reported by interviewees in Organization D. We also removed this
information from the matrix displayed in Figure 1 to enable an easier analysis. The last column in
Table 1 relates the facilitator or barrier to the BPM governance elements, when this is applicable.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

We subsequently analyzed the observed causal relationships to identify systems archetypes (Senge,
2006) for the BPM initiative in Organization D. Systems archetypes are known patterns of related
causal loops that may explain or predict the behavior of a system. In this case, we identified a structure
that characterizes a system archetype known as Growth and underinvestment (Figure 2). It
represents typical situations where the performance of a system grows for a certain period, and then it
halts or decreases due to lack of investment in factors that could improve its performance.

Variable

Support from top management

31

2
3
4
5
6

Maturity level in BPM(*)


Concurrence with non-BPM activities
Speed of BPM team learning
Financial resources
BPM team motivation
Leaders with process manager
profile(*)
Implementation delay of modeled
processes
BPM roles and responsibilities
definition(*)
BPM team turnover
Availability of adequate IT
infrastructure(*)
Culture of departmentalization
Compliance with payment schedule
Proper operation of BAM tool(*)
Priority of systems integration(*)

B
B
F
F
F

24
19
17
16
12

31
8
15
4
25

Related BPM
Governance
Element
Roles and
responsibilities
Activities
-

12

21

11

11

10

14

Roles and
responsibilities
-

Infrastructure

B
F
B
B

7
6
5
3

13
8
12
4

Infrastructure
-

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Facilitator Sum Weight Sum Weight


or Barrier of Causes
of Effects

Table 1. Variables (facilitators and barriers) ordered by their systemic power.


The virtuous reinforcement causal loops delimitated by the rectangle (1) on the left-side of Figure 2
may be seen as a dynamic structure that initially leveraged the performance of the BPM initiative in
Organization D. It is formed basically by a set of variables that were considered as facilitators in the
context studied. Although the central variable Realizations of the BPM initiative is not present in the
causal relationship matrix illustrated in Figure 1, it was inferred from the context. It represents the
efforts carried out and the positive results already obtained by this initiative.
The balancing loops delimited by rectangle (2), right-side up of Figure 2 is formed mainly by variables
that were pointed out as barriers. It tends to slow down and break the performance of the virtuous loop
delimited by (1). Starting from the variable Realizations of the BPM initiative, it causes the
Concurrence with non-BPM activities, as people involved continued to accumulate other
responsibilities besides the BPM activities. That, in its turn, generates a lack of BPM roles and
responsibilities definition in the BPM initiative. This later variable contributes to slow down
Maturity level in BPM and Leaders with process manager profile variables. Finally, fewer
Leaders with process manager profile reinforces the Departmentalized culture in the organization,
resulting in less Realizations of the BPM initiative, closing this balancing loop.
The rectangle (3) delimited in Figure 2 represents the Underinvestment structure of the archetype
proposed. It means that the Concurrence with non-BPM activities leads to the Perception of
necessity to establish permanent BPM services. This later variable promotes Establishing a BPM
Office, which, in its turn, shall foster BPM roles and responsibilities definition and Maturity level
in BPM. This shall invert the slow down effect of balancing loops in (2), consequently contributing to

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

the sustenance of the initial performance growth. We must highlight that, although the variables
Perception of necessity to establish permanent services in support to BPM and Establishing a
BPM Office are not present in causal relationship matrix in Figure 1, they are actions already in
course in Organization D. However these actions were related as being on its initial steps, which
means here that their presence in the archetype is a significant risk to the performance of BPM
initiative in organization D, since concrete results may not be promptly available. We shall also
remark that there may be other investments that were not mentioned by participants of Organization D
and that can leverage the performance of this BPM initiative. For instance, actions of continuing
education in BPM should contribute to more Leaders with process management profile.

Figure 2. Growth and Underinvestment Archetype for BPM initiative in Organization D.


Finally, when we look at the last column of Table 1 relating facilitators and barriers to the governance
elements that guided this research we found that the governance elements "roles and responsibilities",
"infrastructure" and "activities" are highlighted in the context studied. The elements "activities" and
"roles and responsibilities" also play an important role in the archetype identified as they are related to
variables Concurrence with non-BPM activities, BPM roles and responsibilities definition and
support from top management.

6 Conclusion
This paper presents two key contributions to the understanding on how BPM governance is conducted
by public organizations. We performed case studies with four Brazilian public organizations to
investigate how BPM governance elements are treated by their BPM initiatives. In addition, we
presented a system dynamic analysis of barriers and facilitators faced by one of the studied
organizations. This analysis of system archetypes may contribute to a better understanding of causal
variables and how their interaction impacts the performance of a BPM initiative. We believe that the
results from the system dynamic analysis contribute to an in-depth diagnosis of current challenges and
key factors that shall increase the success of BPM initiatives.

10

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

Based on our findings, we can conclude that a key barrier faced by organizations is to increase BPM
awareness and promote a process-orientation culture. In addition, the lack of personnel with BPM
expertise who can act as process owners can be a major threat for public sector BPM initiatives.
Brazilian public sector hires servants approved by official exams. This means that professionals may
not have desirable BPM skills and expertise. To overcome this barrier, organizations hire external
consultants. This strategy can be a short-term palliative, but organizations must perform the necessary
knowledge transfer to internal staff. A key facilitator for the BPM initiatives is the strong sponsorship
by current government leaders. However, this support can be quite fragile since future elections can
change managerial priorities. All organizations aim to strength their BPM units to guarantee the
evolution of their initiatives organization wide. In summary, our conclusion regarding the current
stage of BPM initiatives carried out by the four organizations is that even though they do not adopt a
formal BPM governance model, most governance elements were identified.
Similar empirical studies were found in literature. Jayaganesh and Shanks (2009) synthesized a
framework for BPM governance and reported two case studies that explored the influence of national
culture on BPM governance in India. While Doebeli and colleagues (2011) proposed a BPM
governance model that addresses BPM decision-making, along with roles and responsibilities in an
Australian governmental corporation. Similarly to our research, both studies employed a qualitative
approach, but these were applied in BPM initiatives with higher maturity levels. The originality of our
study is the investigation of how BPM governance elements are embraced by public organizations.
Given the low maturity levels of the BPM initiatives of the studied organizations, the challenges and
fragility of their BPM initiatives are even greater. To foster their performance, we proposed a system
dynamics analysis to understand how barriers and facilitators are interrelated. From this analysis,
organizations shall better plan their upcoming actions.
Despite our efforts to avoid inappropriate conclusions, there is a possibility that the study
interpretation may have resulted in some inaccuracy. We addressed validity and reliability of our
results from the perspective proposed by Merriam (2009). We tried to maximize consistency by
validating our synthesis with participants during the focus groups. To increase credibility, we used
triangulation by having data collected using two data collection methods: interviews and focus groups.
To enhance transferability, we tried to provide a rich description of the organizations context and
characteristics of their BPM initiatives. As future research, we plan to conduct longitudinal case
studies with participating organizations to capture the evolution of their BPM governance. In addition,
we aim to perform system dynamics diagnosis with other organizations. The comparison of the
archetypes produced shall delineate more general insights to leverage the performance of BPM
initiatives in public organizations.

Acknowledgements

This project was financially supported by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq), process
[480657/2011-4]. George Valena is a doctoral student at Centro de Informtica of Universidade
Federal de Pernambuco, receiving a scholarship from CNPq, process [#141817/2012-7].

References
Aitken, C., Stephenson, C. and Brinkworth, R. (2010). Process Classification Frameworks. Handbook
on Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg, vol. 2, 7392.
Bandara, W., Indulska, M., Chong, S. and Sadiq. S (2007). Major Issues in Business Process
Management: An Expert Perspective. In Proceedings of European Conference on Information
Systems, St Gallen, Switzerland, 12401251.
Becker, J., Rosemann, M., Rglinger, M. and Zur Muehlen, M. (2012). Business Process Management
- An Introduction to the Special Focus Issue. Business & Inf. Systems Engineering 4 (5), 227228.

11

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

Bigdeli, A. Z., Kamal, M. M. and de Cesare, S. (2012). Electronic Information Sharing in Local
Government: The Decision-Making Process. In Proceedings of European Conference on
Information Systems.
Bucher, T. and Winter, R. (2010). Taxonomy of Business Process Management Approaches.
Handbook on Business Process Management, Springer, Heidelberg, vol. 2, 93114.
Derguech, W. and Bhiri, S. (2010). Reuse-Oriented Business Process Modelling Based on a
Hierarchical Structure. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Reuse in Business Process
Management, Business Process Management Conference.
Doebeli, G., Fisher, R., Gapp, R. and Sanzogni, L. (2011). Achieving sustainable business process
management and improvement through BPM governance using BPM governance to align systems
and practice. Emerald, Business Process Management Journal (Pre-print).
GesPblica.
(2012).
Process
Management.
Available
at:
http://www.gespublica.gov.br/ferramentas/pasta.2010-04-26.0851676103
Gulledge, T. R. and Sommer, R. A. (2002). Business Process Management: Public Sector
Implications. Business Process Management Journal, 8 (4), 364376.
Hammer, M. (2010). What is Business Process Management? Handbook on Business Process
Management, vol 1. Springer, Heidelberg.
Jayaganesh, M. and Shanks, G. (2009). A cultural analysis of business process management
governance in indian organizations. In proceedings of the European Conference on Information
Systems, 113.
Jeston, J. and Nelis, J., (2008). Business Process Management, practical guidelines to successful
implementations. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Khan, R. N. (2004). Business Process Management: A Practical Guide. Meghan-Kiffer Press, p.53.
Kirchmer, M. (2009). Business Process Governance for MPE. High Performance Through Process
Excellence From Strategy to Operations, Springer-Verlag, 6984.
Kohlbacher, M. (2009). The Perceived Effects of Business Process Management. In Proceedings of
IEEE Toronto International Conference, 399402.
Korhonen, J. (2007). On the Lookout for Organizational Effectiveness Requisite Control Structure in
BPM Governance. In proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on BPM Governance.
Merriam, Sharan, B. (2009): Qualitative Research: a Guide to Design and Implementation. 2nd ed. The
Jossey-Bass.
Niehaves, B. and Henser, J. (2011). Business Process Management Beyond Boundaries? - A Multiple
Case Study Exploration of Obstacles to Collaborative BPM. In Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, 113.
Puah, K.Y. P. and Tang, K.H.N. (2000). Business Process Management, a Consolidation of BPR and
TQM. In Proceedings of IEEE Intl Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology.
Ravesteyn, P. and Batenburg, R. (2010). Surveying the critical success factors of BPM systems
implementation. Business Process Management Journal, vol. 16, 492507.
Recker, J., Mutschler, B. and Wieringa, R. (2011). Empirical Research in Business Process
Management: Introduction to the Special Issue. Inf. Syst. E-Business Management, 9 (3), 303306.
Rosemann, M. and van Brocke, J. (2010). The Six Core Elements of Business Process Management.
In: vom Brocke, J.; Rosemann, M.: Handbook on Business Process Management 1 Introduction,
Methods, and Information Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heildelberg, 107122.
Santana, A. F. L., Alves, C. F., Santos, H. M. and Felix, A. de L. C. (2011). BPM Governance: An
Exploratory Study in Public Organizations. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Business Process Modeling, Development and SupportBPMDS, 4660.
Scheer, A. W. and Brabnder, E. (2010). The Process of Business Process Management. Handbook on
Business Process Management, vol. 2, Springer, Heidelberg.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Crown
Publishing Group.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. and Smith, B. (2008). The Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Currency, Doubleday.
Yin, Robert. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, vol. 4, 5th ed. Sage Publications.

12

Вам также может понравиться